Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Quote:
Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.
This is the part that drives me nuts. People who say that evolution is a theory on a par with creationism. While evolution has not been proven, creationism has, based on observation and experiment, been disproven at its most basic levels and cannot even be compared to a real scientific theory.
It reminds me of the "equal time" argument of politics on TV news. The objective truth of the issue is less relevant than being "fair" and presenting both sides, no matter how lopsided the evidence might be.
I read a book a couple years back called Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett, and was very comforted to find this passage on the first page of his very critical examination of Darwin's theories and how they have been interpreted:
Quote:
Darwin's theory has been abused and misrepresented by friend and foe alike. It has been misappropriated to lend scientific respectability to appalling political and social doctrines. It has been pilloried in caricature by opponents, some of whom would have it compete in our children's schools with 'creation science,' a pathetic hodge-podge of pious pseudo-science. *
* I will not devote any space in this book to cataloguing the deep flaws in creationism, or supporting my peremptory comdemnation of it.
People who believe in creationism are ignorant and stupid. I'm sorry if it's not very PC or accepting of me to say that, but fuck it. I have no use for anyone who believes that crap, I wouldn't feed those people to my pett alligator for fear he could become retarded.
--PunkDavid
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
creationism has, based on observation and experiment, been disproven at its most basic levels and cannot even be compared to a real scientific theory.
Creationism renders itself a fraud by its very nature. And as poined out in that article, the majority of people who engage in the whole "evolution is wrong" thing have absolutely no education on the topic, or anything regarding the nature of science in general. And some creationists are actually knowingly engaging in outright, blatant lying to keep their fundamentalist worldviews pure...which makes them sinners by their own ideology.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Skywalker wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
creationism has, based on observation and experiment, been disproven at its most basic levels and cannot even be compared to a real scientific theory.
Creationism renders itself a fraud by its very nature. And as poined out in that article, the majority of people who engage in the whole "evolution is wrong" thing have absolutely no education on the topic, or anything regarding the nature of science in general. And some crerationists are actually knowingly engaging in outright, blatant lying to keep their fundamentalist worldviews pure...which makes them sinners by their own ideology.
You give them too much credit.
--PunkDavid
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:36 am Posts: 3556 Location: Twin Ports
It cannot be proven, but there is overwhelming physical evidence to support evolution.
There is no evidence aside from theological writings to support creationism.
I don't see how this threatens Christians or faithful people. There may still have been a God there to put everything in motion. Who knows? We won't.
Creationists are taking this waaaaaaaaaay too seriously. At best, they feel that their faith may be threatened. At worst, they are simply trying to increase thier numbers by forcing public institutions to teach Christian theology as "science".
Here is an idea for them. At school, kids need to learn SCIENCE. At Sunday school, kids can learn RELIGION.
This is how many people go about their educations and exist perfectly happy accepting a faith and evolution.
_________________ Rising and falling at force ten
We twist the world
And ride the wind
People who believe in creationism are ignorant and stupid. I'm sorry if it's not very PC or accepting of me to say that, but fuck it. I have no use for anyone who believes that crap, I wouldn't feed those people to my pett alligator for fear he could become retarded.
--PunkDavid
The hate is sometimes nauseating... I'm not offended, I'm more of a Paley man myself (the watch in the desert), but goddamn. Wanna hug?
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:01 am Posts: 19477 Location: Brooklyn NY
Ill put it like I heard Bill Mahr say a while ago: people who believe in creationism and reject the theory of evolution can't accept the fact that human beings come from monkeys, animals that frequently masturbate and throw food and crap at each other.
But wait, people throw bombs and shoot bullets at ourselves. Maybe we aren't so different afterall...
_________________
LittleWing sometime in July 2007 wrote:
Unfortunately, it's so elementary, and the big time investors behind the drive in the stock market aren't so stupid. This isn't the false economy of 2000.
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:46 am Posts: 437 Location: australia kyao (melbourne)
punkdavid wrote:
Quote:
Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.
This is the part that drives me nuts. People who say that evolution is a theory on a par with creationism. While evolution has not been proven, creationism has, based on observation and experiment, been disproven at its most basic levels and cannot even be compared to a real scientific theory.
It reminds me of the "equal time" argument of politics on TV news. The objective truth of the issue is less relevant than being "fair" and presenting both sides, no matter how lopsided the evidence might be.
I read a book a couple years back called Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett, and was very comforted to find this passage on the first page of his very critical examination of Darwin's theories and how they have been interpreted:
Quote:
Darwin's theory has been abused and misrepresented by friend and foe alike. It has been misappropriated to lend scientific respectability to appalling political and social doctrines. It has been pilloried in caricature by opponents, some of whom would have it compete in our children's schools with 'creation science,' a pathetic hodge-podge of pious pseudo-science. *
* I will not devote any space in this book to cataloguing the deep flaws in creationism, or supporting my peremptory comdemnation of it.
People who believe in creationism are ignorant and stupid. I'm sorry if it's not very PC or accepting of me to say that, but fuck it. I have no use for anyone who believes that crap, I wouldn't feed those people to my pett alligator for fear he could become retarded.
--PunkDavid
the only thing nuts here is yourself. people who believe in creationism are ignorant and stupid? the only one ignorant is yourself. i am betting you don't know the first thing about creationism and intelligent design theories. let me guess you probably equate creationists with flat earthers right?
tell me a few things please......
has ONE scientists EVER observed evolution in action. has even the most "basic" bacteria being observed to generate additional genetic information needed for micro-evolution? answer no btw......
is natural selection (a scientific fact) a pointer to evolution? no its not and hinders evolution (micro) because it leads to the genetic pool being reduced instead of the other way round.
isn't it absurd to believe the complexity in our universe (pariticulary the human brain) arose without a creator more intelligent than ourselves? that author you quoted there didn't even bother attempting to poke holes in creation theory. at least creationist writers like john sarfarti phd. have written books like "refuting evolution" which do that. i know all about evolution via my own research a state school education. how much do people like yourself know about creation?
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am Posts: 24177 Location: Australia
Now this is my kinda thread.
I think some people have a problem with evolution on the basis that it can not be proven. But this is simply because they lack a full understanding of the process of science and how it works.
Nothing can be proven. The point is that it can't be disproven. Creationism is pseudoscience because it isn't falsifiable and it's not logical. I don't even need to go further than that, but if anyone wants to object, I can.
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:46 am Posts: 437 Location: australia kyao (melbourne)
vacatetheword wrote:
Now this is my kinda thread.
I think some people have a problem with evolution on the basis that it can not be proven. But this is simply because they lack a full understanding of the process of science and how it works. Nothing can be proven. The point is that it can't be disproven. Creationism is pseudoscience because it isn't falsifiable and it's not logical. I don't even need to go further than that, but if anyone wants to object, I can.
i'll be happy to debate you laura!
now correct me if i'm wrong but science needs to be obserable and repeatable right? origins is not obserable or repeatable and there is far too much guesswork. we have mt.st helens rocks which were dated at millions of years old when we all know those rocks were not that old.
how would organisms in inbetween stages survive? what use would have a woodpecker be for example without the total system being developed FULLY? it must have the cushioning in its skull, its brain must be fully developed and the beak must also be fully developed. i could use 100 other examples but the woodpecker is a good one. intermediate species don't make any sense and the evidence for their existence is lacking at best. species like neatherndal man are likely to be fully man and not an ancestor.
the host of evolutionary frauds shows that perhaps its not the creationists who are intellectually dishonest;
piltdown man
moths who were glued to trees (which wasen't evolution anyway)
fraudluent drawings by ernst hackel trying to trick people into believing human embryos went through evolutionary stages in their development
and so on.......
the host of evolutionary frauds shows that perhaps its not the creationists who are intellectually dishonest;
piltdown man moths who were glued to trees (which wasen't evolution anyway) fraudluent drawings by ernst hackel trying to trick people into believing human embryos went through evolutionary stages in their development and so on.......
I'll get to the rest of your propaganda later, but this here pretty much sums up creationism. These frauds are exposed by science and shunned as they should be, used as an example. Science doesn't create frauds, certain individuals do, and science corrects these embarassments. The difference here is that creationists use these examples of awful science and repeat them over and over as if this is information that is being taught. Hello, turn the page. It's pointed out by science to be just as much a fraud as creationism. This example of creationist rhetoric is a great example of the straw grasping that goes on.
Last edited by Skywalker on Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:41 am, edited 3 times in total.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am Posts: 24177 Location: Australia
asurrrrrpriseleft wrote:
vacatetheword wrote:
Now this is my kinda thread.
I think some people have a problem with evolution on the basis that it can not be proven. But this is simply because they lack a full understanding of the process of science and how it works. Nothing can be proven. The point is that it can't be disproven. Creationism is pseudoscience because it isn't falsifiable and it's not logical. I don't even need to go further than that, but if anyone wants to object, I can.
the host of evolutionary frauds shows that perhaps its not the creationists who are intellectually dishonest;
piltdown man moths who were glued to trees (which wasen't evolution anyway) fraudluent drawings by ernst hackel trying to trick people into believing human embryos went through evolutionary stages in their development and so on.......
Alright, this is what stuck out at me first from your post.
Scientists, as a group of people, are only human. There will always be a feed 'bad eggs' amongst such a large group. This is why there is a peer-review process. Every single scientific paper is reviewed by other scientists and the experiment repeated to ensure the same results are achieved before it is ever published. This is where all evolutionary evidence has been accepted by the scientific community. Just because a couple of people in the past have done the wrong thing is no reason to disregard the entire group.
It's not like there are no examples from creationists either. Noah's Ark found in Turkey, anyone?
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am Posts: 24177 Location: Australia
asurrrrrpriseleft wrote:
we have mt.st helens rocks which were dated at millions of years old when we all know those rocks were not that old.
Different dating techniques will give you very different results. This is why there is still debate for how long ago Aboriginies came to Australia. But we can narrow it down to a certain time-frame.
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:46 am Posts: 437 Location: australia kyao (melbourne)
I'll get to the rest of your propaganda later, but this here pretty much sums up creationism. These frauds are exposed by science and shunned as they should be, used as an example. Science doesn't create frauds, certain individuals do, and science corrects these embarassments. The difference here is that creationists use these examples of awful science and repeat them over and over as if this is information that is being taught. Hello, turn the page. It's pointed out by science to be just as much a fraud as creationism.[/quote]
good point you are right that is certain individuals and that doesn't discredit the theory as a whole. EXEPT that those hackel drawings were still being used in text books when i was in high school and they were proven to be fakes decades ago. the kids in schools have no alternative in this area. teach evolution and creation side by side (if the school is happy to do that) and allow the students to make up their own mind.
please we have countless references to creationism being a fraud. if its obvious then please prove it wrong right here and right now. even better if its so easy write an email to a group like http://www.answersingenesis.org and allow them to poke holes in your arguement. seriously if its so easy you guys shouldn't have a problem putting your beliefs up for criticism.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am Posts: 24177 Location: Australia
asurrrrrpriseleft wrote:
how would organisms in inbetween stages survive? what use would have a woodpecker be for example without the total system being developed FULLY? it must have the cushioning in its skull, its brain must be fully developed and the beak must also be fully developed.
The 'stage' between woodpecker and what came before isn't a transitionary stage as such. The woodpecker had no idea it would come to peck wood in the future. It was adapted to the conditions of the time and as the environment evolved so did the woodpecker. Other species became extinct. It became more specialised and now pecks wood. A mutation occured which mean some woodpeckers were able to peck wood better because they had better cushioning. Natural selection favoured this paticular woodpecker. And so evolution continues...
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:01 am Posts: 19477 Location: Brooklyn NY
Creationism doesn't work because it bases itself in a strict interpretation of one single religion, and it doesn't seek to incorporate any other ideas. Those of you who believe in Creationism might as well believe in Gilgamesh, Zeus, and the Easter Bunny
_________________
LittleWing sometime in July 2007 wrote:
Unfortunately, it's so elementary, and the big time investors behind the drive in the stock market aren't so stupid. This isn't the false economy of 2000.
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:46 am Posts: 437 Location: australia kyao (melbourne)
vacatetheword wrote:
asurrrrrpriseleft wrote:
we have mt.st helens rocks which were dated at millions of years old when we all know those rocks were not that old.
Different dating techniques will give you very different results. This is why there is still debate for how long ago Aboriginies came to Australia. But we can narrow it down to a certain time-frame.
but different dating methods can come with up vastly different figures and in this case obviously majorly incorrect figures. carbon 14 dating also has its problems. as to your previous post you made the same point as skywalker and you make a good point. however perhaps the question has to be asked, why was it so easy to fool the entire scientific community or at least a large section of it. if someone glues some moths on trees why did it take so long to discover these frauds? why have so many "ancestors to man" being allowed to be accepted when so many have being shown to be apes, homo sapiens or outright frauds?
skywalker my post was propoganda? really you give me too much credit....
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am Posts: 24177 Location: Australia
asurrrrrpriseleft wrote:
good point you are right that is certain individuals and that doesn't discredit the theory as a whole. EXEPT that those hackel drawings were still being used in text books when i was in high school and they were proven to be fakes decades ago. the kids in schools have no alternative in this area. teach evolution and creation side by side (if the school is happy to do that) and allow the students to make up their own mind.
That isn't science's fault, it's the fault of whoever made the textbook and the school for using it. Moot point.
If you're going to teach creationism you're opening the door to all kinds of stuff. Then you have to teach any theory from any religion or group. May as well teach astrology and biorhythms and crystal healing too. There's no difference between them, scientifically.
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:01 am Posts: 19477 Location: Brooklyn NY
asurrrrrpriseleft wrote:
vacatetheword wrote:
asurrrrrpriseleft wrote:
we have mt.st helens rocks which were dated at millions of years old when we all know those rocks were not that old.
Different dating techniques will give you very different results. This is why there is still debate for how long ago Aboriginies came to Australia. But we can narrow it down to a certain time-frame.
but different dating methods can come with up vastly different figures and in this case obviously majorly incorrect figures. carbon 14 dating also has its problems. as to your previous post you made the same point as skywalker and you make a good point. however perhaps the question has to be asked, why was it so easy to fool the entire scientific community or at least a large section of it. if someone glues some moths on trees why did it take so long to discover these frauds? why have so many "ancestors to man" being allowed to be accepted when so many have being shown to be apes, homo sapiens or outright frauds?
skywalker my post was propoganda? really you give me too much credit....
And the theory of natural selection??
_________________
LittleWing sometime in July 2007 wrote:
Unfortunately, it's so elementary, and the big time investors behind the drive in the stock market aren't so stupid. This isn't the false economy of 2000.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
